Cbi case order MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2014 M.Murugappan … AppellantAccused Vs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 04.08.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:01.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2014
M.Murugappan … AppellantAccused
Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police
SPE/CBI/ACB
Chennai. .. Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 30.07.2014 in
C.C.No.63 of 2001 rendered by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai, against the appellant and acquit the appellant.
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Rajarathinam Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Sundaresan
For the Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
J U D G M E N T A. The appeal:
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment of the learned XI
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai, dated 30.07.2014, made in C.C.No.63 of 2001.
1.1. By the said Judgment, the appellant was convicted of the 33 charges framed against him and was sentenced as follows:
S.
No. Offence Punishment
1 U/s 120-B r/w 420, 468 r/w
471, 467 r/w 471, 477-A, 406, 381, 201 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
2 U/s 406 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
3 U/s 468 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
4 U/s 381 IPC (two counts) RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
5 U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC (two RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR

S.
No. Offence Punishment
counts) EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
6 U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
7 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
8 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
9 U/s 468 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
10 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
11 U/s 467 IPC (three counts) RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
12 U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
13 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one

S.
No. Offence Punishment
thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
14 U/s 477-A IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
15 U/s467 IPC (two counts) RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
16 U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
17 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
18 U/s 477-A IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
19 U/s 468 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
20 U/s 468 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
21 U/s 467 IPC (two counts) RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE

S.
No. Offence Punishment
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
22 U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
23 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
24 U/s 477-A IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
25 U/s 467 IPC (two counts) RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
26 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
27 U/s 420 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
28 U/s 477-A IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
29 U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
S.
No. Offence Punishment
30 U/s 467 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
31 U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
32 U/s 201 IPC RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
33 U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC, Act 1988 RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
1.2. Aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. The appellant is referred to as the accused in this judgment.
B. The Case of the Prosecution & The Trial:
2. On 13.01.1998, information was received indicating that the accused –
Murugappan, who was working as a Clerk-cum-Typist at the State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, Chennai, from July 1992 to November 1997 in the Foreign Exchange Department, which handled foreign transactions, schemed to indulge in fraudulent transactions involving foreign remittance funds and abused his official position illegally. He opened an NRE Account No.173 in the name of Ramasamy Chettiar at the branch and fabricated telex messages. During the usual process of negotiating export bills, he credited the funds into the said NRE Account, made false credit entries, and withdrew the money as if he was the account holder. Based on this information, P.W.53 – S. Arulandu registered a case in RC 1 (A)/98 on 13.01.1998 for the alleged offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, and 202 of IPC, and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.1. Another piece of information was received that, for the same period, while the accused was working in the same position and carrying out similar transactions, he opened an account in the name of his brother, S. Kannappan, and similarly fabricated telex messages. He remitted the amount into his brother’s account, totaling Rs. 65,41,781/-, and withdrew the said amount as if he was the account holder. P.W.53 registered a second FIR on the same day, i.e.,
13.01.1998, in RC 2 (A)/98 CBI/ACB/CHENNAI, for the very same offences.
2.2. Additionally, information was received about the opening of another account in the name of Punitha Ramanathan, the wife of the accused. Using a similar modus operandi, the accused fraudulently obtained Rs.17,57,130/-, which was deposited into the account and then withdrawn by the accused himself. Accordingly, third FIR was registered in RC 3 (A)/98 CBI/ACB/CHENNAI on the same day for the same offences by P.W.53.
2.3. Yet another piece of information was received regarding the creation of fabricated foreign exchange transactions, which were wrongfully credited to the account of the accused’s wife and the current account of S. Kailash. As a result, Rs.11,72,130/- and Rs.3,87,050/- were illicitly withdrawn from these accounts. Consequently, fourth FIR was registered by P.W. 53 under RC 4 (A)/98 CBI/ACB/Chennai for the same offences.
2.4. P.W.53 thereafter took up all four cases for investigation, and upon finding that they were part of the same transaction committed by the appellant, filed a single final report after completing the investigation. The case was registered as C.C.No.63 of 2001. After considering the final report and the materials, on 08.08.2020, 33 charges were framed against the accused for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468 r/w 471, 467 r/w 471, 477A, 406, 381, 201 IPC and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, 406, 468 r/w 471, 381 (2 counts), 467 r/w 471 (2 counts), 467 r/w 471, 420, 420, 468 r/w 471, 420, 467 (3 counts), 467 r/w 471, 420, 477 – A, 467 (2 counts), 467 r/w 471, 420, 477 – A, 468, 468 r/w 471, 467 (2 counts), 467 r/w 471, 420, 477 – A, 467 (2 counts), 420, 420, 477 – A, 467 r/w 471, 467, 467 r/w 471, 201, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.5. The accused denied the charges and stood trial. To establish the charges, a total of 53 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.53, and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.372 were marked. When questioned about the material evidence on record, the accused denied it as false. Subsequently, no evidence was admitted on behalf of the defence. However, during the trial, Ex.D1 to
Ex.D3 were marked on behalf of the accused.

2.6. The Trial Court then proceeded to consider the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, and found all the 33 charges proved and sentenced as above. Aggrieved, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.
C. The Arguments:
3. Mr.R.Rajarathinam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused, submits that in this case, the appellant is the sole accused. During the relevant period from 1993 to 1997, he was working as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the concerned branch. In the said branch, namely, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, besides the Commercial and Institutional (C & I) Division there was
Small Scale and Small Business Division, Personal Banking Division and the Account Division were also functioning. The C & I Division comprises three divisions: Advances, Accounts, and Foreign Exchange. It can be seen from the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the witnesses that the appellant/accused was entrusted with many tasks related to the PB division, such as maintaining day books, writing debit and credit vouchers based on telex messages, balancing books of accounts, and issuing NRE receipts.
3.1. According to the prosecution, the germination of the case was that on
03.11.1997, two credit and debit vouchers were presented to P.W.4 – Madanagopal by the accused for approval. Since the telex messages were not tested, Cash Accountant – Devadoss was asked to verify and authenticate them. The transaction was processed afterward. There was a delay of more than 30 days in processing the telex, which was brought to the notice of P.W.3 – Kesavan, who then contacted P.W.2 – V. Gopala Krishnan. They suspected similar transactions and conducted further account scrutiny on 04.11.1997. Upon confirming with the State Bank of India, New York, which denied certain telex transactions, a complaint was filed on 10.11.1997 before the Ambattur Industrial Estate Police, leading to Crime No.913 of 1997 and the arrest of the appellant.
3.2. The prosecution states that the appellant allegedly made a confession, which was written by P.W.2 – Gopala Krishnan, and marked as Ex.P.14. The appellant was then asked to copy the same statement in his own handwriting, marked as Ex.P.15. The learned Senior Counsel will explain the nature of the charges. He claims that the acts alleged against the appellant include criminal misconduct, cheating, record fabrication, account abuse, theft of bank records, and evidence destruction to conceal the crimes. The allegations involve Ramasamy Chettiar’s fixed deposit account at Canara Bank, Valliammal Chettiar’s fixed deposit receipt, a fixed deposit in the name of Thillaikarasi, and later creation of fake accounts and fabrication of foreign telex messages.
3.3. The learned Senior Counsel argued that among the examined witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 6, 10 to 15, and 35 were officers and employees of the State Bank of India, who discussed the procedures and transaction modalities in the Commercial and Institution (C & I) Department, Foreign Exchange Division of SBI and the Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch. P.Ws. 7 to 9, 16, 18, 21 to 24, and 32 to 34 belonged to the Personal Banking (PB) Division. P.W.1 – Adi Moorthy was the sanctioning authority, P.W.12 – G.J. Pandi Thurai. The other witnesses including the authorities and several private witnesses were also examined by the prosecution.
3.4. The learned Senior Counsel, referring to the opening and transaction of the NRE account, would submit that not everything could be done by the accused alone; instead, it was carried out by the concerned officers of the Bank. From the evidence of P.W.1 – the Sanctioning Authority, it is clear that multiple officers were involved in the alleged occurrence. It should also be noted that P.W.36 – Ramasamy Chettiar did not file any complaint regarding the nonreceipt of Rs.81,005.75/- at any time. The NRE Account No. 173 was opened solely with his money, and it was withdrawn and received by P.W.36. In fact, P.W.10 authenticated the account opening form of NRE Account No. 173, marked as Ex.P.94, which was admitted by P.W.10 – V. Srinivasan and confirmed by P.W.33 – Adhinarayanan.
3.5. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the FCNR forms are kept under the personal safe custody of bank officials. It is evident that there was no proper authentication in the security form register for the daily use of the forms by the bank officers. The testimony of P.Ws.2 and 10 demonstrates this. Ex.P.13 shows that there were no missing forms or security issues, as the running numbers had already been noted and verified by the concerned officers.
Therefore, it must be noted that there was no complaint regarding any loss or theft of the FCNR forms from the custody of the officers. Regarding the allegations concerning the FCNR for USD 4995-27, it was duly authenticated by P.W.14 – J.S. Ramasamy. The corresponding voucher dated 20.12.1992 has been verified and approved solely by P.W.14, which he admits in his evidence. Therefore, once P.W.14 admits this, the question of forging his signature on the FCNR form does not arise. P.W.14 also authorized the security form for the fixed deposit – Ex.P.3 on 20.02.1992.
3.6. Regarding the fixed deposits, the maturity value of USD 6096.23, and the claim that it was closed and credited to NRE Account No.173 on 17.04.1995, the learned Senior Counsel argued that P.W.10 properly authorized the transaction by issuing the credit and debit vouchers, which he also admitted. Therefore, there was no question of fraudulent credit to the account. The Senior Counsel then addressed his arguments related to FCNR No. 485318 dated
20.02.1996, stating that the form was taken from the security form register –
Ex.P.13, kept under the personal custody of P.W.10, and was authenticated by
P.W.3 in Ex.P13. Kesavan – P.W.3, issued the corresponding credit and debit vouchers and admitted doing so in his evidence. As a result, the allegation that P.W.3’s signature was forged on the FCNR does not arise at all.
3.7. Making his submissions regarding FCNR 421916 dated 25.02.1994, in the names of Ramasamy Chettiar, Kalaiarasi Chettiar, and Valliammal Chettiar, the allegation is that it was prematurely closed on 03.11.1994 and credited to NRE Account No.173. It is evident that the vouchers are authenticated by P.W.10, and this was admitted by P.W.10. The said FCNR was properly closed and received in February 1995, as authenticated by P.W.10 through the relevant credit and debit vouchers. The maturity amount for the deposit was sent to P.W.36 via telex to SBI, London. The outgoing telex for the payment of GBP 6096 contained a test key, known exclusively to bank officials, all of whom have admitted this. Therefore, the appellant could not have fraudulently or dishonestly generated the telex message. Regarding FCNR 436156 dated 03.02.1994 for USD1928.19, on 28.01.1995, it was authenticated by P.W.10 through the necessary credit and debit vouchers, which he admitted in his testimony. Concerning FCNR 436173, for USD 2015.92 dated 24.01.1995, it was duly authenticated by P.W.10 through the relevant credit and debit vouchers, which he also admitted. Thus, the issue of forging P.W.10’s signature does not arise. With regard to the telex messages dated 18.10.1995, 06.06.1996, and 09.07.1996 for USD 19656 and USD 8950, the vouchers were thoroughly verified and authenticated by P.W.6 – V. Padmanaban.
3.8. The vouchers for telex messages dated 06.06.1996 and 09.07.1996 were properly verified and authenticated by P.W.3. These telex messages also include a test key known only to the relevant officers, verified with the secret code machine. The original telex messages were not recovered or seized. The bank witnesses admitted that a separate file was maintained in the telex section by the concerned department. The telexes received in duplicate are kept in the telex file. None of the witnesses indicated any destruction or loss of telex messages at any time. The daily reports in Ex.P21 and 28 related to these transactions have been verified and authenticated by P.W.2. These reports were sent with the specimen signature number (SS Number). The SS Number was given only to bank officials and was recorded in a book available at all SBI branches. The bank witnesses confirmed this. Therefore, without additional evidence, it is unlikely that the appellant alone conducted the transactions as the prosecution alleges.
3.9. Referring to FCNR 21902 dated 18.09.1991 in the name of Thillaikarasi Kannappan, vouchers have been properly authenticated by P.W.10 in Exs.P168 and 169. NRE Account No.195 was opened based on the authentication of P.W.10 in the account opening form – Ex.P101. P.W.33 admitted in his testimony that P.W.10 authenticated the account holder’s signature. Regarding FCNR 421921, it was again removed from Ex.P13 and authenticated by P.W.10, who processed the related credit and debit vouchers and authenticated them. Therefore, the issue of forging P.W.10’s signature does not arise. The credit and debit vouchers for the FCNRs were not even marked as exhibits.
3.10. Moving on to telex messages dated 21.08.1996 and 23.10.1996, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the vouchers for these telex messages have been verified, approved, and authenticated by P.W.3. As with the other telex messages, the test key here was known only to bank officials, which is verified by the secret code machine. The credit and debit vouchers for these messages were not marked as exhibits. The question of fabricating the telex messages does not arise because all such messages related to payment carry the originating bank’s telex code, the beneficiary, the credited amount, the nature of the transaction, and the test key. In this case, the original telex messages were not recovered or seized. Similar to other transactions, bank witnesses admitted that a separate file maintained these details, and no evidence has been produced regarding any loss of this file. Daily reports in Exs.P32 and 35 related to these transactions have been verified and authenticated by P.W.2. These reports were sent with a specimen signature, which was only provided to bank officers and recorded in a book available at all SBI branches. The signatures are kept in the bank’s safe custody, which is admitted. Regarding the account opening form in SB 84/25122, it was not produced before the Trial Court.
3.11. Moving on to the telex messages dated 05.08.1996 and 17.04.1997, the learned Senior Counsel would assert the same allegations regarding the test key and the vouchers being certified and authenticated by P.Ws.3 and 4, as well as the credit and debit vouchers not being marked, along with other details that are supposed to be included. The learned Senior Counsel would also make the same arguments concerning the non-recovery of telex messages and daily reports related to them. Regarding the telex messages dated 24.01.1997 and 04.03.1997, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that after the credit was made into SB Account No.36/8105 at SBI, Anna Nagar West Branch, these messages were verified and authenticated by P.W.4, and he would raise similar points regarding the credit and debit vouchers, the SS number, the fabrication of the telex message, the non-recovery of the original telex message, and the daily reports related to them.
3.12. The learned Senior Counsel would then submit that the procedures to be followed in respect of transactions in the Foreign Exchange Department can be understood from the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6, 10 to 15, and 35. The learned Senior Counsel would argue that the non-production of these material documents would necessarily affect the prosecution’s case, and an adverse inference must be drawn by this Court. He would also contend that officers in the Foreign Exchange Department are authorized to pass, approve, and authenticate any transaction, and all these transactions have been signed and approved by at least two officials; the appellant herein was only a Clerk.
3.13. Regarding the alleged forgery of P.W.36’s signature in Ex.P.97, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that P.W.15 – P.R.Nachiappan wrote a letter. P.W.15’s deposition that Ex.P.97 was signed by the appellant on behalf of P.W.36 cannot be proven, as there was no reason for P.W.15 to have written Ex.P.97 or for it to have been signed by the appellant/accused. Ex.P.97 was not sent to a handwriting expert for examination. It was handed to P.W.15, passed by P.W.7, and Ex.P.189 and 192 were written by Kasthuri Rangan, who was not examined, as admitted by P.W.15.
3.14. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the evidence of the bank officials shows that periodic audits were conducted at the Foreign Exchange Department. However, no report indicating any discrepancies in the transactions or any loss incurred has been produced. None of the account holders in the Foreign Exchange Department lodged any complaints regarding non-payment or loss of money in the transactions. P.W.49 investigated the irregularities in the forex transactions and filed a report in Ex.P366, mentioning fraud amounting to Rs.2.18 Crores, as if it was committed by the accused. It is evident that none of the witnesses have testified about any loss suffered by the bank.
3.15. The learned Senior Counsel would then address the evidence of the
Investigating Officer – P.W.52. It can be seen that P.W.33 confirmed that the NRE Accounts Nos.173 and 195 were opened, based on the authentication and approval by P.W.10. The prosecution witnesses P.Ws.26 to 30 and 48 stated that they received payments from the appellant through these transactions. In fact, in the absence of the production of original books of accounts, application forms, loan forms, share certificates, and the non-seizure of the corresponding record, except for a sheet of paper written by them, this evidence should not be accepted.
3.16. Regarding the evidence of P.W.50 – Handwriting expert, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that the Ex.P368 report was supposed to have been prepared by considering the admitted signatures and writings, along with the specimen signatures and writings, which are referred to as standard writings. The enlargement photos were taken but not produced before the Court. B.
Kasthuri Rangan and S.V. Subramanian, other clerks working in the Foreign Exchange Department, were never examined by the prosecution. According to the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4, these two clerks prepared the debit and credit vouchers based on the telex messages passed by P.Ws.2 and 4, similar to the actions of the appellant/accused. The expert would admit that he has not studied the admitted signatures of the appellant/accused. Therefore, these writings should not be considered as standard writings.
3.17. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the appellant/accused has been made a scapegoat by entirely blaming him for such a large number of transactions, while everyone involved in the exercises was let off. Although it is alleged that as many as 21 documents (Exs.P.57 to 77) were recovered from the table drawer of the appellant on 05.11.1997, P.W.3’s testimony shows that during the seizure, P.Ws.2, 7, and Surathy were present, and P.Ws.2 and 7 did not mention any seizure. P.W.3 admits that no proceedings were drawn during the seizure, which raises the possibility that the documents could have been planted and collected into the drawer of the appellant. Moreover, from the evidence of
P.W.52 – the Investigating Officer, it appears that several other officials have faced the departmental action. There is no justification or logic in prosecuting the appellant alone while allowing the other officials to only face departmental proceedings.
3.18. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that Kasthurirangan, S.V. Subramanian, and other clerks working in the FEX Department, the telex operator P. Srinivasan, and the Cash Accountant Devadoss were all highly relevant witnesses to the case and have not been examined. The bank witnesses, who verified and authenticated the cheques, debit and credit vouchers, etc., have clearly stated that they recognized the handwriting and signature of the accused and still approved and authenticated the documents. They avoided liability only by claiming that they did everything in good faith on the part of the appellant / accused. Therefore, it is evident that their statements are not credible. The prosecution does not specify with whom the appellant conspired. The investigation did not identify any individual whatsoever; hence, the charge of conspiracy does not hold in this case.
3.19. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that a mere perusal of the entire sequence of events shows that a single person could not have committed the alleged violations without the knowledge and connivance of the officers who authorized, approved, and authenticated each transaction. Thus, the bank has made only the accused a scapegoat, and the prosecution has not proved the ingredients of all the charges. Now, regarding the various offenses, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that in the absence of any other person being named or suspected, the conspiracy charge cannot be sustained. To prove the charge under Section 406 of IPC, the prosecution did not establish entrustment or control over the property. For the charges under Section 468 read with Section 471 of IPC, further evidence is necessary, even though P.W.36 has testified that neither he nor his wife signed the account opening forms, and the handwriting expert’s testimony supports this. It is also not proved who forged the documents, as it is clear that the signatures on Ex.P.62, 94, and 98 were not signed by the appellant/accused. Regarding the charge under Section 381 of IPC, there is no evidence presented by the prosecution concerning the theft of FCNR, which was in the safe custody of the Divisional Manager. As for the charges under Section 461 and 471 of IPC, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that only handwriting matches, but there is no evidence regarding signatures by presenting the following tabular column.
Sl.
No. In Exhibits Matching Handwriting Questioned
Signatures
Not matching
1 Ex.P.62 (A/c Opening Form) Q1,Q2,Q3 5,6,7,8,11,12
2 Ex.P.94 (A/c Opening Form) Q13, Q14 15,16
3 Ex.P.98 (A/c Opening Form) Q18,Q19 20,21
4 Ex.P.63 (Term Deposit Receipt) Q22 24
5 Ex.P.74 (Term Deposit Receipt) Q29 33
6 Ex.P.77 (Term Deposit Receipt) Q25 27
CHEQUES
7 Ex.P.96 Q89,90,91,92,93 229
8 Ex.P.127 Q32 155,156
9 Ex.P.128 Q45,46,47,48,299,300,30 1 174,175,301(Backside Murugappan)
10 Ex.P.130 Q34,35,36,37,38 162
11 Ex.P.131 Q39 163
12 Ex.P.132 Q40 164
13 Ex.P.133 Q41 165
14 Ex.P.134 Q42 166, 167
15 Ex.P.135 Q44 169, 170
16 Ex.P.136 Q43 168, 229, 333
17 Ex.P.144 Q28 284
Sl.
No. In Exhibits Matching Handwriting Questioned
Signatures
Not matching
18 Ex.P.294 Q78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 221
19 Ex.P.295 Q87 222
20 Ex.P.296 Q88 223
21 Ex.P.298 Q49 to 76, Q77 210
22 Ex.P.299 Q33 157
23 Ex.P.301 Q31, 298 153, 154
24 Ex.P.309 Q.30, 92 to 154, 297 (Murugappan) 151,152,297
(Backside – Murugappan)
3.20. Finally, the learned Senior Counsel argued that, based on P.W.50’s evidence, the appellant or accused did not forge anyone’s signature on the account opening forms – Exs.P.62, 94, and 98, the term deposit receipts – Exs.P63, 74, 77, and 174, and the signatures of the account holders in Exs.P.96, 127, 128, 130 to 136, 294 to 296, 298 to 299, 301, and 309. The sole evidence presented by the prosecution is that the handwriting on these cheques matches the specimen signature of the appellant or accused. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the specimen handwriting signatures of the appellant or accused were collected by P.W.52 on various dates starting from 02.07.1998. He also highlights contradictions among P.Ws.39, 40, and 41 regarding the collection of these specimen handwritings. Additionally, the Senior Counsel relies on a passage from H.R. Hardless’s book, ‘Disputed Documents Examination and Finger-Prints Identification’, Chapter VI, to support his arguments.
“Request writings or specimens must be obtained on three to sis different papers and if possible on different occasions. The suspect should not be allowed to see the original documents in question or its photograph. The suspect should not see the specimen he has given when he is requested to give further specimens. In other words, remove each sample for each specimen writing from the sight of the writer as soon as it is completed.
No instruction as regards spelling, punctuation or arrangements be given while obtaining specimen writings. One should use the same writing media, such as type and size of paper, writing instrument printed forms or letter-heads or blank cheques or blank promissory-note forms. The document examiner should also call for genuine writing or genuine signature of the person whose signature is forged. If it is suspected that disputed writing is disguised, specimen writings of both hands, right and left, must be obtained. The writer must be requested to put his initials and date on every page of the specimen writings. The initials of the witnesses should be obtained on the back of each specimen writing, never on the front. An attempt must be made to obtain natural writings of the suspect, e.g., an application for employment or for leave, social or business correspondence, school papers written approximately on a date as near the date of the questioned writing. If the disputed writing is in block capitals, the suspect must be asked to write names of towns, streets, notable persons which cover the letters of the disputed block writings.”
3.21. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that none of these were followed by the Investigating Officer – P.W.53 in this case. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev Singh and Another , particularly referring to paragraphs 27 to 32, to discredit the entire opinion of the handwriting expert due to the lack of admitted handwriting. It would be dangerous to base a conviction solely on the testimony of the handwriting expert, as such evidence should not be regarded as conclusive.
3.22. The learned Senior Counsel, thereafter commenting on Exs.P14 and 15, the alleged confession statements, would point out that these do not fall under the category of extra-judicial confessions. They were not obtained during the departmental enquiry. They are neither voluntary nor given before an unbiased authority or person. P.Ws.2 to 11, 14, 15, 33, and 35 have all been punished in the departmental enquiry; therefore, the statements made in their presence cannot be considered as those recorded before an impartial person. The core of the confession, asserting that everything was done by the appellant alone and that no other person was responsible, clearly demonstrates the motive behind recording the confession. The appellant has been made a scapegoat solely to shield other officers and let them go free.
3.23. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram , particularly citing paragraphs 18 to 20, to argue that an extra judicial confession can be considered only if it is made to a person who is not even remotely inimical to the accused. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra , referencing paragraph 8, to contend that in cases where there is evidence indicating possible animosity, the Court must proceed cautiously in determining whether the confession should be accepted.
3.24. The learned Senior Counsel finally argued that no money was recovered from the appellant. Although Exs.P14 and 15 mention that everything was lost in the share market, no evidence of loss could be established from the testimony of P.W.29 or from Exs.P239 and 240. These documents, which are computer-generated printouts, were marked without a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, should be discarded by this Court. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani is cited to argue that the trial court should not have relied on secondary evidence. Consequently, no presumption can be made that the accused was the ultimate beneficiary. Moreover, since the prosecution witnesses have specifically admitted the roles of various other officers in most transactions, and because not all ingredients of each charge are proved, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted by this Court.
3.25. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that in this case, the prosecution has examined 53 witnesses and marked 372 documents. Proper sanction has been granted by PW.1 for the prosecution. PW.2 was the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, during the relevant period, and through him, Exs. P2 to 56 were marked.
He also identified the handwriting of the accused in various exhibits Exs. P19 to 32, 35, 37, 42, 45, 48 & 49, 53, and 54.
3.26. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that as per
Ex.P30 – Credit Voucher, a sum of Rs.5,26,440/- was made into the NRE Account No.195 of Kannappan. On 23.10.1996 the credit voucher – Ex.P34 was prepared by the accused in favour of Kannappan’s NRE Account No.195, for a sum of Rs.2,60,390/-, representing the proceeds of UTTP 45 for USD 7374; on 05.08.1996 a debit voucher – Ex.P38 was prepared by the accused for a sum of USD 5950 equivalent to Rs.2,10,154/-; and was credited into the account no. 84/25122 of Punitha Ramanathan; on 17.04.1997 a debit voucher was prepared by the accused for USD 9900, equivalent to Rs.3,53,232/- and the debit voucher was marked as Ex.P42. On the backside of Ex.P.42, the accused has shown the bank charges and the remaining amount to be credited. Corresponding to Ex.P42, a credit voucher was prepared by the accused on the same day, which is
Ex.P43. As per Ex.P43, a sum of Rs.3,52,350/- was credited into the Account No. 01190035122 of Punitha Ramanathan. On 24.01.1997 a debit voucher was prepared by the accused for USD 8400 equivalent to Rs.3,00,048/-, and the debit voucher is marked as Ex.P45. On the backside of Ex.P45, the accused has shown the bank charges and the amount to be credited. Corresponding to Ex.P45, a credit voucher, Ex.P46, was prepared by the accused for Rs.2,99,290/- and the same was credited into the account of Punitha maintained at Anna Nagar West Branch. This can be seen from Ex.P12; on 04.03.1997 a debit voucher – Ex.P49 was prepared by the accused for USD 6000, equivalent to Rs.2,14,020/-. On the backside of Ex. P49 – the debit voucher, the accused noted the bank charges and the balance amount to be credited. Corresponding to Ex.P49 – debit voucher, credit voucher – Ex.P50 was prepared by the accused on the same day for a sum of Rs.213,480/- for the credit of the Anna Nagar west branch without mentioning the beneficiary. On 06.05.1997 a debit voucher – Ex.P53 was prepared by the accused for USD 6330, equivalent to Rs.2,25,854/-. On the reverse of Ex.P53, the accused has shown the bank charges and the balance amount to be credited. Credit voucher – Ex. P54 – was prepared by the accused, and the beneficiary’s name is shown as SB Account No. 36/7105 at Anna Nagar
West Branch, without mentioning the name of the beneficiary.

3.27. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that, according to the evidence of PW.2, on 03.11.1997, he was informed by Kesavan – PW.3, a field officer of that branch, that the accused provided two debit vouchers related to foreign exchange transactions for passing by Madanagopal – PW.4, the accountant in the division. The two debit vouchers were based on the telex received from SBI, New York. Initially, the telex message was not shown to Madanagopal – PW.4 when the debit vouchers were passed. PW.4 insisted that the accused produce the telex message. Subsequently, the accused took the telex from his pocket and produced it. PW.4, the accountant, found that the telex was not authenticated by the cash accountant. Later, PW.4 demanded the accused get the telex authenticated by the cash accountant, which was done. The cash accountant informed PW.4 of a 40-day delay from the date of the telex. After Madanagopal passed the debit vouchers, he verified the telex and found it missing from the file. It was later traced the next day from the same file. These suspicious acts were reported to the AGM, Rajan Srinivasan – PW.35. This incident led to an inquiry, during which the accused was called and questioned. During the inquiry, the accused gave a written statement, which is Ex.P15. The learned Special Public Prosecutor then argues that Ex.P15, written in the accused’s own handwriting, constitutes an extra-judicial confession made prior to the lodging of the complaint and is therefore relevant and admissible in evidence to support other record evidence. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relies on the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ram Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , particularly paragraphs 13 and 14.
3.28. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would argue that the contents of Ex.P15 demonstrate that it was made voluntarily and freely, and none of the officers were antagonistic towards the appellant. He would further state that, after receiving information, four different FIRs were registered on 13.01.1998, and following investigation, a single charge sheet was filed. The recovery of the incriminating documents, Exs.P57 to 77, has been clearly testified by PW.3-P.R. Kesavan, who was acting as the field officer at the relevant time. He points out to the credit vouchers in Exs.P30 and 31, through which money was credited to the NRE account of Kannappan, the accused’s brother. Similar evidence was also presented regarding the crediting of amounts into the account of Punita Ramanathan.
3.29. Adverting to the other relevant evidence, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the contents of the Ex.P15 statement show that it is voluntary and made out of free will by the accused. The accused has stated the modus operandi of the fraudulent transactions, namely, three accounts—NRE Account No.173, NRE Account No.195, and SB Account No. 25122, converted into current account No. 38571—were all opened by the accused without the knowledge of the account holders, and all three accounts were operated by the accused, including the signing of cheques. The account opened in the name of his wife, Punitha Murugappan, was genuine, but all the operations were handled by the accused without informing his wife about the debits and credits made in the said account. All the credits that have come into the above three accounts are not actual foreign inward remittances, and no foreign exchange is involved. If any telex payment is received, the accused replaced the telex payments for these accounts by preparing a parallel telex message, substituting the names of the beneficiaries, and thereafter destroying the original telex message after the credits are processed.
3.30. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the reason for committing the above fraudulent acts was that the accused lost money in the share market, which prompted him to commit these mistakes. In this regard, four FIRs were registered on 13.01.1998, marked as Exs. P 369 to 372. The first FIR, RC 1 A/1998, is against Murugappan. The core allegation in this FIR is that the accused illegally opened NRE Account No. 173 in the name of V. Ramasamy Chettiar. After opening this account, the accused falsely fabricated telex messages based on genuine messages received from abroad at the branch for negotiating export bills, and then credited false remittances into the NRE account opened by him. He subsequently withdrew the amount. The second FIR, RC 2 A/1998, alleges that he illegally opened NRE Account No. 195 in the name of M.Kannappan, his brother. The accused then fraudulently diverted the proceeds from a fixed deposit (FD) held by Kannappan, instead of depositing the amount for a further three years as his brother intended. To deceive his brother, he secretly removed FD receipt No. TPA 1 421921 from the branch, falsely fabricated it for the same amount for a three- year period, and sent it to his brother. After opening the NRE account, he fabricated telex messages and deposited false remittances into it, then withdrew the money. The third FIR, RC 3 A/1998, alleges that the accused opened an SB Account No. 25122 in his wife
Punitha Ramanathan’ s name, which was later converted into current account No. 38571. He then falsely fabricated telex messages based on genuine messages from abroad, as if the amount received was to be credited to his wife’ s account. Subsequently, the amounts were dishonestly withdrawn by him. The fourth FIR, RC 4 A/1998, was registered against Murugappan- A 1, Punitha Murugappan- A 2, and S. Kailash- A 3. The core allegation is that he used the same modus operandi- fabricating false telex messages- to make fraudulent credits into the accounts of A 2 and A 3 and later withdraw the funds. After investigation, all four FIRs resulted in the filing of a single charge sheet.
3.31. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that during the relevant period, PW.3 – Kesavan, was working as a commercial and institutional divisional field officer in the Ambattur branch of SBI. His evidence reveals that on 05.11.1997 at about 6 pm, the office drawer of the accused was checked in the presence of PW-2 and other bank officers, and 27 documents, namely Exs. P57 to 77, were recovered. Among these exhibits, Ex.P76 was a telex dated 18.02.1995, and Ex.P77 was a receipt in the name of Valiammal Chettiar and her minor children. He also mentions credit vouchers (Exs. P30 & 31), through which money was credited to the NRE Account of Kannappan, the accused’s brother. This witness additionally states that although he passed Exs. P30 & 31, they were prepared by the accused. Similarly, he indicates that
Ex.P34 was prepared by the accused, and Rs.260,390/- was credited to Kannappan’s account. Likewise, according to Exs. P38 & 39, also prepared by the accused, Rs.2,09,630/- was credited to Punitha Ramanathan’s (the wife of the accused) account.
3.32. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that P.W.4
Madanagopal, who was working as an assistant manager at the Ambattur Industrial Estate branch of SBI, describes the incident that occurred on 03.11.1997, involving the accused bringing two credit vouchers and one debit voucher without a telex message. Out of these three, two credit vouchers credited amounts to the accounts of Punitha Ramanathan and V. Ramamsamy Chettiar. It is also stated that although the accused initially did not produce the telex message, he later did so upon insistence. The witness testifies about the debit and credit vouchers, namely Exs. P42, 43, 45, 46, and Ex. P12, all in the handwriting of the accused. These witnesses further state that Exs. P45 and 46 were prepared by the accused, and according to Ex. P47, Rs. 299,290/- was credited to Punitha Ramanathan’s account at the Anna Nagar West Branch. Similarly, Exs. P49, 50, and 83 were also prepared by the accused, and Rs.
213,480/- was credited into the same account of Punitha Ramanathan, Ac. No. 36/7105, at the Anna Nagar West branch. Likewise, Exs. P53 and 54 were prepared by the accused, and Rs. 25,290/- was credited into the same account of Punitha Ramanathan.
3.33. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits the evidence of PW.5 – Vethavalli, a clerk at SBI, Ambattur branch. She describes the incident that occurred on 03.11.1997, involving the accused bringing two credit vouchers without a telex message and later producing the telex message belatedly. She also specifically states that on 03.11.1997, it was her duty to prepare the credit vouchers, but without her knowledge, the credit vouchers were prepared by the accused.
3.34. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the testimony of PW.6 – V. Padmanaban, Deputy Manager at SBI, Ambattur Branch, as a co-employee, indicates that he is familiar with the handwriting of the accused and also states that Exs. P23 & 24, which are the debit and credit vouchers, were prepared by the accused based on a telex message. Ex. P84 appears to have originated from SBI, New York. The beneficiary listed in Ex. P84 was identified as Ramasamy Chettiar’s NRE Account.
3.35. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the evidence of PW.7 – PG. Krishnamurthy, a manager working in SBI Ambattur, shows that he is acquainted with the handwriting, signature, and initials of the accused. He testifies that various cheque books have been received by the accused. He also states that the accused made 74 bogus credit transactions in NRE Account No. 173,195 and SB Account No. 25122. NRE 173 is in the name of Ramasamy Chettiar and others, NRE 195 is in the name of Kannappan, the brother of the accused, and SB Account No. 25122 is in the name of Punitha Ramanathan, the wife of the accused. The fraudulent credit entries were based on fraudulent telex messages. He further discusses the opening of NRE Account No. 173, as well as another NRE account, Ex.P.98. He also mentions the opening of Account No. 195 in the name of Kannappan. On that day, Rs. 438,689 was credited to Kannappan’s account by transfer, and the paying slips were filled out by the accused. Additionally, he refers to cheque Exs. P106 & 107, which are self-cheques, with the amounts received by the accused. Similarly, the amount related to cheque Ex.P.108 was received by the accused, who signed the reverse side. The proceeds of cheque Ex.P.110 were also received by the accused. He cites Exs. P42 & 43, which are debit and credit vouchers in the handwriting of the accused, with the proceeds in favor of Punitha Murugappan. This witness was unaware that the cheques were bogus.
3.36. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the evidence of PW.8 – S. Ramesh, who worked as an assistant manager at SBI, Ambattur, discusses Ex.P127, a self-cheque for Rs.64,000/-, and Ex.P.128, a cheque for Rs.40,000/-, both purportedly signed by the account holder Ramasamy Chettiar, with the accused signing on the reverse side of the cheques. Similarly, the cheque Ex.P105 was presented by the accused, purportedly signed by Kannappan, and the accused signed on the back of that cheque, with the proceeds collected by the accused.
3.37. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that PW.9
Gurumoorthy worked as a manager in the personal banking division of SBI Ambattur during the relevant period. He is familiar with the signature and handwriting of the accused. He speaks about various cheques: Exs. P130, 131, 133, 134, and 135. All these cheques were filled in the handwriting of the accused. Ex. P130 is for Rs.180,000 in favor of Prema and Co., purportedly signed by the account holder Ramasamy. Ex. P132 is a cheque for Rs.50,000/- in favor of R.N. Chinnammal, purportedly issued by Ramasamy Chettiar. The cheque Ex.P133 for Rs.30,000 is in favor of Fountain Head Financial Services Pvt Ltd, purportedly signed by Ramasamy Chettiar. Ex. P134 is a self-cheque for Rs.60,000, purportedly signed by Ramasamy Chettiar. Ex. P135 for Rs.8,000 in favor of Murugappan (the accused), purportedly signed by Ramasamy Chettiar. Ex. P136 is a cheque for Rs.1 lakh favoring Punitha Ramanathan, purportedly signed by Ramasamy Chettiar.
3.38. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that PW.10 worked as the Manager of the C&I Division at the Ambattur branch. He was responsible for the foreign exchange section, which was under his supervision, and the accused was managing the foreign exchange section of the branch as a clerk. He is well acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the accused. He testifies about the account-opening form Ex.P.94 in the name of Ramanathan Chettiar, stating that the contents are in the handwriting of the accused. This witness has signed to verify the contents of the account-opening form, and he states that he did so in good faith. He discusses Exs.P7 and 137 to 100. In most of these exhibits, the writings attributed to the accused are present.

3.39. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that P.W.11- Sridharan worked as an Assistant Manager at the SBI branch in Ambattur. He managed foreign exchange transactions alongside other duties. He stated that in the foreign exchange division, the accused and Ramanan worked as clerks, with most tasks handled by the accused. He also mentions that there is a telex operator in the branch, who is attended to by the accused when the telex operator is unavailable. He refers to Ex.P.5, which is the FOREIGN DRAFTS, MAIL TRANSFER TTE’s issue register covering the period from 5.04.1993 to 28.03.1996. In Ex.P.5, there is an entry favoring Valliammal Chettiar for US dollars, made by the accused. Similarly, the debit slip marked as Ex.P146 was filled out by this accused and passed by the witness.
3.40. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the EVIDENCE OF PW-12 PANDI DURAI, who worked as a computer operator at SBI, Ambattur. He states that the accused was not posted as a telex operator.
Occasionally, when the telex operator went to the extension counter at LUCAS TVS, the accused used to operate the telex machine. He had advised the accused not to operate the telex machine without official communication, but the accused replied that the manager had authorized him to operate the telex. This witness had even informed the AGM about this, but the AGM stated that sometimes he had asked the accused to do the work.
3.41. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that PW-13 Rangarajan worked as a manager in SBI, Ambattur. He discusses Exs. P57 to 62,
177, 178, 7, 152, 179, 180, and 181, all relating to Ramasamy Chettiar. He also states that PW-21 mentions Ex.P110 cheque, which was used for payment to
Murugappan; he identifies Murugappan’s signature on the backside of Ex.P110. Additionally, PW-22 talks about Ex.P107 cheque, stating that the cheque was presented by Murugappan, who paid the cash, and Murugappan signed Ex.P107 on the reverse.
3.42. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that PW.23 and PW.24 speak about Exs. P106 and 108, the cheques which were presented by Murugappan, and cash was received by Murugappan and signed on the back of the cheques. PW.26, who was working at Park Land Finance and Investment during that time, discusses Murugappan obtaining a loan from that company against shares and securities. PW.27 A.R. Murugappan states that Kannappan was his sister’s son. He also says that Kannappan and his wife, Thillaikarasi, did not have an SB account in SBI, Ambattur branch. PW.29 Valliappan, a share broker, handed over documents to the CBI, including Ex.P239, a statement of account of Punitha Ramanathan, and Ex.P240, which details the shares purchased and sold. PW.30 Arumugam, the managing partner of KALPATHARU
FINANCIERS in Chennai, discusses the accused obtaining loans against shares.
PW.32 Narasimhan, a branch manager at SBI, Ambattur branch, mentions several cheque transactions related to NRE Account 173. PW.35 Rajan
Srinivasan, who served as AGM at SBI Ambattur at the relevant time, refers to Exs. P14 and P15, statements voluntarily given by the accused. He also states that he filed the complaint with the local police upon instruction from the head office.
3.43. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that PW.36 Ramasamy Chettiar is a resident of Canada. He discusses the Ex.P62 account opening form, which is said to be in his name and his son’s and daughter’s, and disowns the signatures found on Ex.P62. He also talks about the Ex.P94 account opening form in his name and his family members, and he disowns the signatures on the reverse of P.94. Additionally, he mentions the Ex.P98 account opening form and disowns the signature on the reverse of Ex.P98. Similarly, he disowns Ex.P99, a letter dated 07.10.1996, purportedly sent in his name to the Branch Manager, SBI, Ambattur, authorizing the opening of NRE account no. 173. He also disowns letter Ex.P97 sent to the Ambattur branch. Furthermore, he states that he has not received the maturity proceeds of Ex.P81 due to the alleged fraud. P.W.37 Kalaiarasi Chettiar, wife of Ramasamy Chettiar, is shown the Ex.P94 account opening form and denies her signature on that form. PWs.38, 39, 40, 41 & 46 are witnesses whose presence was used to obtain various specimen signatures of the accused.
3.44. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that PW.44, S. Baskar, who worked as an officer at Bank of Baroda, Nungambakkam, Chennai, during the relevant period, testifies about the search conducted at the residence of the accused, Murugappan, during which the passbook of NRI Account no. 173 of Ramasamy Chettiar, marked as Ex. P349, was seized under search list Ex. P348. PW.47 Punitha, the wife of the accused, states that she does not remember whether she had any account in the SBI Anna Nagar Branch or the Ambattur Estate Branch. PW.48, K.N. Lakshmi, was the owner of Prema company, which handled shares. She discusses the accused and his wife purchasing shares with cash and cheques. She refers to Ex. P358 and 359 to 362, which are all account statements related to shares.
3.45. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that P.W.49 is
Shyam Victor, who was an AGM at SBI during the relevant period. He
conducted an internal investigation of the bank and submitted a detailed report, Ex. p.366 (see page 4566/Vol. XII), which spans several pages. This is a crucial investigation report that sheds light on the entire modus operandi of the fraudulent acts committed by the accused. PW-50, A.K. Singh, is the handwriting expert. He provided a report, Ex. p. 368, in which the ninth opinion relates to the accused. It indicates that S1 to S199 taken from the accused matches the questioned documents. Opinions 2, 3, 6, and 7 are all negative, showing that the questioned documents did not match with those of Ramasamy Chettiar, Kalaiarasi Chettiar, Valliamal, and Punitha Murugappan. PW-52 is the investigation officer who conducted the investigation based on a case registered by one Arulandu, Inspector of Police, and filed a final report. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
D. Discussion & Findings:
4. I have thoroughly considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent – CBI.
4.1. Before referring to each charge and determining whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges against the accused, it is essential to address some of the arguments that were made in general.
4.2. The primary point is that, after reviewing the evidence from various prosecution witnesses and the transactions documented by the Investigating Officer, it is clear that no transaction was directly made by the accused. Instead, all allegations involve activities like opening accounts, creating fixed deposits, processing telex messages, and crediting amounts, in which several bank officials are also involved. At each stage, these officials are expected to authenticate, verify, and sign off on the details before the transaction proceeds.
The detailed inspection report in Ex.P.366 led to departmental proceedings against multiple officers. The defence argues that this series of transactions indicates a scam within the branch, and by concealing the truth and excluding others, the appellant was singled out for trial and made a scapegoat.
4.3. A closer scrutiny of the materials does reveal that several other officers of the bank had a role in every transaction, including making endorsements such as verifying the particulars and passing the transaction. Had they exercised their duty with due diligence, the transaction could have been avoided, or the fraud could have been uncovered at an earlier stage. Therefore, disciplinary action has been rightly taken against them. However, the question to be decided based on the argument is whether the instant transaction is in the nature of a large-scale scam at the particular branch, involving everyone, or whether only the appellant is liable. Regarding this, it appears that, concerning the various transactions listed in all 33 charges, the prosecution witnesses admitted their roles in passing and executing the transactions. Ultimately, it is the money that was siphoned off and the loss caused to the Bank. Whether relating to encashment of fixed deposit receipts (FCNRs), or creation of forged and fictitious telex messages thereby crediting foreign currency, the evidence shows that the money was ultimately credited into NRE account No.173 of Ramasamy Chettiar, NRE account No.195 of Kannappan, the appellant’s brother, and the account of his wife, Punitha Ramanathan. In all the transactions, the money was traced solely to these accounts associated with the appellant alone. It is not possible to pinpoint the involvement of other officials in the withdrawal or siphoning of funds. At best, it can be concluded that the other officials committed several excesses and violated basic prudence while performing their duties, which may justify departmental action for misconduct under the Conduct Rules. However, there is no evidence of complicity in the crime, that is, with the dishonest intention of receiving any pecuniary or other benefit or with a conspiracy with the appellant. I reject the primary argument made by the defence that suggests others are also complicit and that only the appellant was singled out and made a scapegoat. The voluminous evidence before the Court shows nothing to indicate any other bank official as a beneficiary or involved in the episode with due conspiracy with the appellant.
4.4. In this regard, before forwarding the complaint, upon the case being uncovered and the documents being seized from the drawer of the appellant, it was observed that a detailed statement was made confessing how he committed every fraud, withdrew the money in the transaction, and that he was under stress due to the loss of money in the share market, which led him to spend all these ill-gotten gains in the share market. He also further admitted how his own wife, brother, or the said Ramasamy Chettiar had no knowledge regarding the opening of the bank account and the withdrawal of money through these accounts. Although the said extrajudicial confession cannot be the sole basis for convicting the appellant, it can certainly be used as corroborative material along with various other pieces of evidence in relation to the individual charge.
4.5. In this regard, after considering the judgments submitted by both sides, namely the judgment in Raja Ram’s case (cited supra), Ajay Singh’s case (cited supra), and Ram Lal’s case, it is clear that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant/accused is admissible in law. This extrajudicial confession can be considered by the courts, but with proper caution. Generally, a conviction cannot be based solely on such confessions, although that may also be permissible under certain circumstances. They can serve as corroborative material, especially when supported by other evidence against the accused. Such confessions should not be made before persons interested in the matter or who are hostile toward the accused. Exs. P.14 and 15 were made before officials who cannot be said to be inimically disposed toward the accused. In fact, those officials carried the appellant/accused throughout, believing him to be knowledgeable and capable of conducting international money transfers, among other things. Merely because they are interested in discovering the truth does not imply hostility toward the accused. The origin of the prosecution case shows that several bank officers discussed the matter thoroughly before examining the records, which led to the accused making a confession. Therefore, it cannot be said that any official is interested in shielding others, shifting blame or pressuring the accused into making such a statement. It appears that the confession was given voluntarily, and its contents, supported by other evidence, strengthen the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Consequently, I reject the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that Exs. P.14 and 15 should not be considered.
4.6. The following general argument regarding the proof of various offences is that, in most documents, P.W.50’s clear opinion is that only the appellant’s handwriting appears in the offending or forged documents. First, to discredit the handwriting expert’s report in Ex.P368, the primary contention is the non-production of the enlargement photos. Although enlargement photos are taken during the comparison process, the absence of these photos cannot, due to the volume involved, serve as a reason to reject Ex.P368’s report.
4.7. The second argument relies on the book authored by H.R. Hardless (cited supra), which is alleged to have been flouted in terms of its instructions. Chapter VI of the said book discusses comparison standards. It begins by stating that comparison is always between ‘like with the like’. For specimen writings, similar paper, ink, and writing instruments such as ink pens, ballpoint pens, or pencils should be used. Comparison standards are of two types: with the natural writings and with the request writings. Natural writings are those made in the normal course of business before the date of the disputed writing and must be contemporary to it. The more standards available, the more accurate the comparison. Signatures made in regular writing, not for comparison purposes, are considered the best comparison material. The second type includes request or specimen writings, which should be obtained on 3 to 6 different sheets of paper, preferably on different occasions. The suspect should not see the original documents or their photocopies. No instructions regarding spelling, punctuation, or arrangements should be given while obtaining specimen writings. The same writing media, including paper type and size, writing instruments, printed forms, letterheads, cheques, or promissory note forms, should be used. The comparison material must include normal signatures or writings from admitted records, as well as signatures and writings obtained on three different sheets of similar size to the disputed writing. The expert must ensure that both natural and specimen writings are provided for comparison with the disputed writing. Severe restrictions will be there on the examination and its success if either of the types is omitted.
4.8. In this case, it can be seen from the report in Ex.P.368, which contains the questioned writings and signatures encircled with a red pencil as annexure I. These are sought to be proved by the prosecution as forged. They are given serial numbers from Q1 to Q341. The specimen handwritings of the accused were collected on various dates in S1 to S199, as contained in Annexure II. Similarly, the specimen handwritings of Ramasamy, Kalaiyarasi, Punitha,
J.S. Ramasamy, and V. Srinivasan are also included in Annexure II. The admitted writings and signatures are also collected, and the samples are in Annexure III of the report. The admitted handwriting of the accused in his leave letter, submitted during 1995, was marked as A16. Although more writings and signatures could have been provided to the handwriting expert, it cannot be said that there was no admitted handwriting at all. In fact, in Question No.7, the relevant questions were compared with the specimens in S1 to S99 and the admitted writing in A16. Therefore, I find no flaw in the comparison process of handwritings and signatures, which broadly align with Chapter VI of H.R. Hardless (cited above). Accordingly, I reject the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the entire evidence of the handwriting expert should not be considered.
4.9. Further, the prosecution had also examined P.Ws.29 and 48 – Share Broker and Sub-Broker and marked their ledgers etc, evidencing the share market transactions of the appellant. Even though some of the exhibits that are marked were computer generated print outs and were marked, without a certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the same can be discarded, the evidence of those Share Brokers and the Sub- Brokers coupled with their ledgers that are marked evidencing the purchase of shares, only corroborates the version that is given in Exs.P14 and 15 by the accused himself as to how he utilized the said money. When the prosecution has categorically proved some of the transactions that it is only the accused who has taken the money from the counter and the same is further corroborated by Ex.P15 and the other evidence on record including the handwritings in various documents which are referred to in respect of each and every charge, it can be concluded that the appellant was the sole beneficiary of the amounts that were cheated and siphoned off from the Bank. Further, to prove the overall guilt of the accused, the seizure of incriminating materials (Exs. P57 to 77) from the table drawer of the appellant would demonstrate that everything is being stage-managed and manipulated by the accused. The prosecution witnesses – P.Ws.2 to 5 and 35 have categorically speak about the seizure of the documents.
4.10. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel that there were no seizure memos cannot be pressed into service, as it was seized even before the complaint. It was done by the Bank officials. When as many as 27 documents were recovered from the drawer of the appellant, which included letters from the Ramasamy Chettiar and his family, account opening form, term deposit receipts, telex messages, entries in the relevant ledgers, credit vouchers, etc, the same also adds to the volume of the evidence, that the prosecution is able to muster to prove that the entire transactions were done by the appellant.
4.11. The further submission is made, relating to not proving the forgery of the signature. In this case, many false documents are alleged to be forged. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 and it is essential to extract pragraphs 21 and 25 which read as follows:
“21.It is observed in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar[Mohd. Ibrahimv.State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929] that: (SCC p. 756, para 14)
“14. … a person is said to have made a “false document”, if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practising
deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.” …..
…..
25.Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e. referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.”
4.12 Thus, it can be seen in the instant case, the writings on these false documents are proved. It is not the case of the prosecution that the forgery is only by affixing false signature. The entire documents themselves are forged. Both making and executing are part of creating false document. In this case, it is proven that (i) the accounting opening forms, etc., were not written and signed by the person who was projected to have made the form. Neither it was their signature nor did they fill up the forms; (ii) though the signature was not conclusively proven to be made by the accused, it can be seen that he had made the false document. All the writings in the document are proven conclusively as made by him; (iii) Only because of signature not being conclusively proven, it is the charge of the prosecution that the accused could have taken the help of some unknown person and hence the conspiracy charge; (iv) since the appellant is the sole beneficiary of taking away the money, the dishonest intention stands proved and thus, the arguments, relating to the prosecution not proving the second limb, that is, even though it is proved that it is not made by the original person, the further proof as to who affixed those signatures are lacking, are without any substance. The appellant herein is proved to be the maker of a false document even otherwise, and as such, the offences stand proven. With reference to the other arguments, the same will be considered while considering each of the charges.

4.13. The first charge is relating to conspiracy, framed for the offences under Section 120-B r/w 420,468 r/w 471,467 r/w 471, 477-A, 406, 381,201 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The detailed charge is framed by mentioning every act committed by the accused, along with allegations that he entered into a conspiracy with unknown persons and used them to forge the signatures in the false documents. Thus, it would be appropriate to deal with this charge finally.
4.14. The other charges, the contention of the defense and the findings of this court are tabulated and presented as follows:

Charge No. 2 – 406 IPC
That you, in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the previous charge, at the places said above entrusted or dominion over the property of the Fixed Deposit Receipt issued by Canara Bank, Habibullah Road Branch, Chennai, for a matured sum of Rs. 81,005.75 as on 18.8.1993 of Ramasamy Chettiar and the same was entrusted to you by the said Ramasami Chettiar with a specific instruction to encash the same and kept the said amount for travel expenses of him during his visit to India, you, in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the previous charge, at the places said above entrusted or dominion over the property of the Fixed Deposit Receipt issued by Canara Bank, Habibullah Road Branch, Chennai, for a matured sum of Rs. 81,005.75 as on 18.8.1993 of Ramasamy Chettiar and the same was entrusted to you by the said Ramasami Chettiar with a specific instruction to encash the same and kept the said amount for travel expenses of him during his visit to India, which you misappropriated or converted for your own use for opening the NRE Account No. 173 at the State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, Chenna in the name of Ramasamy Chettiar, without his knowledge, you thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
The Contentions:
The evidence of PW-36 shows no entrustment of fixed deposit receipts to the accused. Entrustment or dominion over the property has to proved for criminal breach of trust
The Findings:
PW-47, the wife of the accused has admitted that Ramasamy Chettiar is her father’s friend. PW-36, Ramasamy Chettiar testified in detail about the entrustment, dominion and missapporiation. The Accused was the son in law of his friend, PW-47 requested him to transfer Fixed
Deposits to SBI Branch in which the accused was working since he will get some credit and the entrust made by him, including the letter written by him all spoken by him. Subsequently, without the knowledge of PW-36 and his family members, the accused encashed the FCNRs, opened an account in their name, and misused the funds. Each and every step is proved in detail. The same will be further buttressed in respect of the findings with reference to the forgery of documents and cheating. Thus, this charge of criminal breach of trust is proved beyond doubt.
Charge No.3 – 468 r/w. 471 IPC
You in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in detail in the first charge on 4.9.93 at Chennai fraudulently and dishonestly used certain documents namely the account opening forms in the name of Ramaswamy Chettiyar and got the signature of Ramaswamy Chettiar forged with the help of unknown persons known to you and used the same as genuine, which you knew or had reasons to believe at the time you used it to be a forged documents and that you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 468 r/w 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
i) PW36 stated that the signatures in the account opening forms are not his or his wife and daughter.
ii)The evidence of PW.S50 (Handwriting Expert) states that the handwritings in the Account Opening Forms (Ex.P.62, Ex.P.94 and Ex.P.98) are written by the person (Accused) whose specimen handwritings are compared with the handwritings in the account opening forms. iii) As far as the signatures in Ex.P.62, Ex.P.94 and Ex.P.98 are concerned, they have not been signed by the accused.
The Findings:
S208 – 210 found in Ex. P314 is the specimen signature of PW37 does not matches with the handwriting found in Q6 and Q7 which is the alleged signatures of her found in the account opening form.
S201-S207 found in Ex. P313 are the Specimen signatures of PW36 which does not matches with the handwriting found in Q5 which is the alleged signatures found in the account opening form
S208 – 210 found in Ex. P314 is the specimen signature of PW37 does not matches with the handwriting found in Q6 and Q7 which is the alleged signatures of her found in the account opening form.
The evidence of appellants wife that they were relatives and contacted by her. The oral evidence of the victims that they entrusted the fixed deposits etc., only to the appellant. The appellant is the sole beneficiary of the monies received. The handwritings on the offending documents are proved to be the appellant. The finding regarding signature is made supra. Thus, the charge is proven.
Charge No.4 – u/s 381 IPC (Two Counts)
That you being clerk cum typist of State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch and in that Capacity committed the theft of FCNR receipt in which you prep for USD 4995.27 for 36 months by ante-dating it as 20.2.92 with a maturity value of USD 6096.23 without remittance any amount to the bank, and further you committed the theft of FCNR No. 436173 and the said FCNR receipts are the properties of State Bank of India Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, Chennai, and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 381 IPC (two counts) and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
i)No evidence of theft of FCNR by the accused.
ii) It will be in the safe custody of Divisional Manager.
iii)Closure of FCNR receipts and crediting the maturity amount in the NRE Account were done by the Branch Manager and other officers concerned.
The Findings:
Ex. P 63 is the alleged FCNR Receipt Charge 4, and Charge 5 are connected charges, whereas the manager PW14 J.S. Ramasamy claims that in Ex. P63 the signature appears to be his, but he further says that the signature is not his, the signature in the P63 is partially marked Q2x
PW 10 Speaks that page 31 of Ex.P13, there is a heading FCNR USD forms issued, and the entry dated 24.12.94, it is shown that the receipt bearing No.436173 has been issued on that day, the entry has been initialled by the accused, the entry is Ex.P145.
FCNR receipt bearing No.436173 from the Bank and fabricated the same dating it 24.1.95 (back dated 20.1.95) for USD 2015.92 and issued the same with the forged signature of V. Srinivasan.
The allegation is that the clerk accused had committed theft of one FCNR Receipt 436173 and an empty FCNR receipt and antedated the empty FCNR receipt, forged it, wrote the contents without remittance, and the receipt is the property of the bank; he committed theft and forgery.
Ex, P63 is the forged FCNR receipt dated 20.02.92 Q22 is the handwriting written in FCNR by the Appellant, confirmed by the PW50 Handwriting expert. Hence, the charge proved.

Charge No. 5 – 467 r/w 471 IPC (Two Counts)
That you in the course of the same transaction as detailed in the first charge and previous charge at Chennai fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain documents namely FCNR receipt for USD 4995.27 for 36 months ante-dating it as 20.2.92 for a maturity value of USD 6096.23 without any remittance to the bank and issued the “FCNR under the signature of J.S.Ramaswamy, Officer of the said bank and with the help of the said unknown persons known to you got the signature of the bank officer Ramaswamy, and FCNR receipt bearing No.43617 dated 24.1.95 (back dating it from 20.1.95) for USD 2014.92 and issued the same by getting the bank officer V.Srinivasan’s signature with the help of unknown person known to you in the said FCNR which you knew or had reasons to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 467 r/w 471 IPC (two counts) and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
i) In term Deposit Receipts ExP.63, ExP.74, ExP.77, ExP.98, ExP.144 as per PW.50, the handwritings alone are matching with the specimen handwriting of the accused. ii)No evidence that the signatures of PW.10 and PW.14 are forged.
The Findings:
Ex. P 63 is the alleged FCNR Receipt Charge 4 and Charge 5 are connected charges where as the manager PW14 J.S. Ramasamy claims that in Ex. P63 the signature appears to be his but he further says that the signature is not his, the signature in the P63 is Partially marked Q2x PW 10 Speaks that page 31 of Ex.P13 there is a heading FCNR USD forms issued and the entry dated 24.12.94 it is shown that the receipt bearing No.436173 has been issued on that day, the entry has been
initialed by the accused the entry is Ex.P145.
FCNR receipt bearing No.436173 from the Bank and fabricated the same dating it 24.1.95 (back dated 20.1.95) for USD 2015.92 and issued the same with the forged signature of V. Srinivasan,
The allegation is Accused had committed theft of the one FCNR Receipt 436173 and empty FCNR receipt and antedated the empty FCNR receipt, forged it, written the contents without remittance and the receipt is the property of bank, he committed theft and forgery
Ex, P63 is the forged FCNR receipt dated 20.02.92 Q22 is the handwriting written in FCNR by the Appellant confirmed by the PW50 Handwriting expert. Hence charge proved.
Charge No.6 – 467 r/ w 471 IPC
That you in the course of the same transaction as detailed in the first charge and previous charge at Chennai fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain documents namely FCNR receipt No.436156 dated 3-2-94 for USD 1928.19 in which the endorsement was fabricated against the interest of the party who wanted to renew the same you fabricated the same as if the party wanted the payment, with the help of unknown person known to you and which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 467 r/w 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
No evidence that the accused has fabricated the document in respect of another FCNR receipt
The Findings:
. PW10 Speaks about FCNR receipt No.436156 dated 3-2-94 for USD 1928.19 which is marked as Ex.P77

PW10 says Ex P77 is signed by J.S.Ramasamy Manager, the endorsement behind the Exhibit says “extend for 3 years from the maturity date” and the same was crossed; further endorsement was made stating to pay the amount on maturity.
Q25 is the contents of the FCNR The crossed endorsement is Q26, the further endorsement is Q27,
The Handwriting found in the Q25 is the Appellant Handwriting
The Handwriting found in the Q26 is valliammal Handwriting
The Handwriting found in the Q27 is not vallimammal Handwirting
The findings in general with reference to proof of signature is made supra. Hence charge proved.
Charge No.7 – 420 IPC
That you in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the first charge on 3-11-94 at Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, Chennai cheated the SBI, Estate Branch(AIEB), Chennai by dishonestly including the said bank to credit the amount of the FCNR No.421976 which stands in the name of Ramaswamy Chettiar, Kalairasi Chettiar and Valliammai Chettiar for GBP 5732.10 in the NRE account No.173 which was opened by you in the name of Ramaswamy Chettiar without his knowledge and subsequently withdrew the amount, which was the property of the said branch and that you there by committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions :
i) In none of the cheques examined by PW.5O, the signatures

on the cheques in Exs.P.127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 301 and 309 the specimen signatures of the accused are matching. As per PW.50 the handwriting in those Exhibits are matching.
ii)PW.21, PW.22, PW.23 and PW.24 have stated that the accused have received the cash vide Ex.P.106, 107, 108 and Ex.P.110. However, those Exhibits were not sent to expert PW.50
The Findings :
The FCNR deposit held vide receipt No.42916 and 25.2.94 in the name of Ramaswamy Chettiar, Kalairasi Chettiar and Valliyammal Chettiar for GBP 5732.10 without any request from the party caused the proceeds of this deposit account of Rs.3,00,810/- got credited into the NRE account No.173 the statement of accounts for NRE account is ex. 87
PW36 says in chief that he along with his wife and daughters had never authorised the branch to open NRE Account Specifically Account No. 173
Further statement of account Ex. Pw87 shows that there is a deposit of Rs. 3,00,810/- on 4.11.94
On 5.11.94 vide Cheque number 217605 a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- Ex 301
Q31 handwriting in the contents of the cheque, Q 153 is the signature found in cheque, further the handwriting opinion Q153 is not the signature of the Ramasamy Chettiyar Q31 is the signature of the Appellant.
Hence, Charge stands proven.

Charge No. 8 – 420 IPC
That you in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the first charge on 27.1.95 at Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, Chennai Cheated the SBI, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch (AIEB), Chennai by dishonestly Inducing the said bank to credit the amount of the FCNR No.436156 which stands in the name of Valliammai Chettiar and two minors for USD 1928.19 equivalent to Indian Rs.63,013/- in the NRE account No.173 which was opened by you in the name of Ramaswamy Chettiar without her knowledge and subsequently withdrew the amount which was the property of the said branch and that you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i) As per PW.5O, the handwriting in Ex P.77 is matching the
specimen handwriting of accused ii)Valliyamai Chettiar was not examined
iii)No complaint from anybody with regard to the endorsement in Ex.P.77.
The Findings:
PW36 says in chief that he along with his wife and daughters had never authorised the branch to open NRE Account Specifically
Account No. 173 further statement of account Ex. Pw87 shows that there is a deposit of Rs. 63,013 in entry 27 was deposited on 9.1.95 to Pw36 account NRE Account 173 in 28th Entry of PW86 shows that there is a withdrawal made for Rs. 64000/- vide withdrawl through cheque 217607 ex P127 dated 28.01.1995
The Opinion handwriting in the cheque was matching with murugappan Q32 and the signatures Q155 is not valliammai signatures. Hence charge proved.
Charge No.9 – 468 r/w.471 IPC
You in the course of, the same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge during the period 1.10.94 to 3.10.94 at Chennai fraudulently and dishonestly used certain documents namely the account opening form of M. Kannappan and got the signature of them forged with the help of unknown persons known to you and used the same as genuine, which you knew or had reasons to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 468 r/w 471 IPC and within, my, cognizance.
The Contentions:
i)Accused did not sign in the NRI form of Kannappan — The
evidence of PW.50.
ii)Charge says some unknown person forged the signature of Kannappan.
iii) Kannappan was not examined.
The Findings:
i)Ex. P-101 is the Account Opening form of Kannappan dated
1.10.94 vide account number 195 ii)Kanappan was not arrayed as witness
iii) One A.R.Murugappan he was the Power of Attorney of Kanappan PW27 deposed that Kannappan has only one NRE Account
and he had never opened a NRE Account in State Bank of India as mentioned in Ex. 101 in account PW 10 says opening ledger sheet 129 cash withdrawal on the same day 4l 35k cheque no 218376 . Hence charge proved
Charge No.10 – 420 IPC
That you in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the first charge, on 3.10.94 at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai Cheated the SBI, AIEB, Chennai by dishonestly inducing the said bank to credit the mount of the FCNR No.421902 which stands in the name of Dr. Thillaikarasi for matured value of GBP 8897.06 as on 18.9.94 in the NRE account No.195 which was opened by you in the name of Kannappan and Thillaikarasi without their knowledge and subsequently withdrew the same, which was the property of the said branch and that you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
i) Neither Thillaikarasi nor her husband Kannappan have been examined to corroborate the allegations in the charge.
ii)Admittedly, PW.10 passed the credit voucher etc.,
The Findings:
i)Ex. P-101 is the Account Opening form of Kannappan dated 1.10.94 vide account number 195, thillaikarasi was not examined by the prosecution ii)One A.R.Murugappan he was the Power of Attorney of Kanappan PW27 deposed that Kannappan has only one NRE Account and he had never opened a NRE Account in State Bank of India as mentioned in Ex. 101 in account PW 10 says opening ledger sheet 129
cash withdrawl on the same day 4l 35k cheque no 218376, iii) PW10 Manager speaks that the procedure for opening nre account was not followed . The appellant is the sole beneficiary of withdrawing the money and hence charge proved.
Charge No.11 – 467 IPC 3 Counts 15 and 21 are relevant
You in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the first charge on 18.10.95, 6.6.96 and 9.7.96 forged certain documents purporting to be a valuable document namely the telex message as if amounts were received from foreign country by way telex with an intent to cheat the bank and on the basis of the fabricated-telex message a sum of is. 6,77,600/-, Rs. 2,78,006/- Rs.3,13,985/- were received by way of telex message in the name of Ramasamy Chettiar and credited the amount into the said NRE account. No.173 opened by you fraudulently and thereby you committed, the offence punishable under section 467 IPC (three counts) and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
i) ExP.69, ExP.70, ExP.76, ExP.84, ExP.85, ExP.172, ExP.189 ad ExP.192 are the telex messages.
ii) No evidence that they are all fabricated telex messages.
iii) With regard to telex message procedures spoken to by PW.2, PW3, PW.5, PW.6, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12.
iv) Accounts Manager Devadoss was not examined.
v)Telex message operator Srinivasan was not examined.

vi) PW.52 (I.O.) admitted that no statement was recorded from
him (page 394).
vii) There is no evidence against the accused with regard to telex
messages.
viii)No evidence to show that the available telex messages are forged one. The procedure will not allow to create forged telex messages.
The Findings:
On the perusal of statement of accounts in NRE 173 it is evident that
Rs.677600 is deposited vide PEx. 24 with a further telex transfer of 19,565 usd vide Ex. P84 . Rs.278006/- is paid usd 8062 on june 6 vide Ex. P27.
Rs. 313985 is deposited in 173 account vide Ex P-18. The new york branch had categorically denied of issued certain telex messages. All the amounts were deposited in the accounts relatable only to the accused
PW6 Deposed that a sum of Rs. 677600 is deposited vide credit voucher Ex.P- 24 the account number was initialed as 174 and further initaled by accused and rounded off as 174.
Thus, firstly, the messages were false documents is established and that the accused is the maker has been established. Hence Charge proved.
Charge No.12 – 467 r /w 471 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as mentioned in the first charge fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the telex messages as detail mentioned in the previous charge which you know or had reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed the offence punishable

under section 467 r/w 471 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i)When forgery of telex messages cannot be proved, no offence
u/s.471 IPC would arise.
The Findings:
For the reasons mentioned in respect of Charge No. 11, this charge 12 stands proved.
Charge No.13 – 420 IPC
You in the course of same transaction, details mentioned in the first charge cheated the SBI, AIEB, Chennai by fraudulently, and dishonestly inducing the said bank to deliver the amount fraudulently credited on the basis of the fabricated telex messages as detail mentioned in the above said previous charges which were credited in the account No NRE 173 which was opened by you and subsequently induced the bank to deliver the same to you and there by you committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i)When no evidence to prove charge No.11 and 12, no charge No 13 can be Said to be proved.
The Findings:
Charge No.11 and 12 are held to be proved. For instance, PW6
deposed that a sum of Rs. 677600/- is deposited vide credit voucher Pex. 24, the account number was initialled as 174 and further initialled by the accused and rounded off as 174, the amount is debited on the Account NRE 173. Hence Charge proved.
Charge No.14 – 477A IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge being a clerk to state bank of India stealthily and with intent to defraud the bank and made a false particulars in Foreign exchange transactions-purchase sheet dt.9.7.96 of the bank namely the TT purchase, transaction of that bank as if the telex, amount was received on account of collection of export bill total a tune of USD 13,200, which belonged to the said bank and send the same to SBI, Foreign department, Calcutta and UTTP Register of the Bank in order to screen the fraud committed by you and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 477-A IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
Unless the charges relating to the telex messages are proved, their charge of 477-A as a corollary also does not stand proved.
The Findings:
Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 were both prepared by Kasthurirangan and passed by him. In Ex.P18, at the bottom, he has written in red ink “TT from State Bank of India NY and UTTP-25”. Although the corresponding Telex Message was not available, every day’s foreign exchange transaction should be reported to the foreign department either on the same day or the next day. This transaction was reported on 10.7.96, but it was incorrectly reported under EXBP instead of UTTP 25, and the amount was also consolidated instead of being
shown separately. The intimation was reported by way of a daily reporting form, Ex.P19. Ex.P19 is in the handwriting of the accused. In Ex.P16, the corresponding bank is NRI/City bank, NA, New York, whereas in Ex.P19, it is shown as State Bank of India, New York. PW2 has further stated that in Ex.P19, instead of showing 8950/- US dollars, it was shown as 13,200 US dollars. He further states that Ex.P 19 is the handwriting of the accused, not one Kasthurirangan. Ex. P 19 the amount was written as Rs. 5,64,160 and further altered to Rs.
4,64,160/-. In P.Ex. 9 V5 Page HC1651, the Test Code for the sum of 8062 USD was mentioned as F81330. Hence, the charge stands proven.
Charge No.15 – 467 IPC 2 Counts
That you in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the first charge on 21.8.96 Rs.23.10.96 forged certain, documents purporting to be a valuable document namely the telex message as if amounts were received from SBI, New York by way telex with an intent to cheat the bank and on the basis of the fabricated telex message a sum of 5,26,000/- & Rs.2,60,390/- were received by way of telex transfer in the name of Kannappan and credited the amount into the said NRE account No.195 opened by you fraudulently and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 467 IPC (two counts) and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
i) ExP.69, ExP.70, ExP.76, ExP.84, ExP.85, ExP.172, ExP.189 ad ExP.192 are the telex messages.
ii) No evidence that they are all fabricated telex messages.
iii) With regard to telex message procedures spoken to by PW.2, PW3, PW.5, PW.6, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12.

iv) Accounts Manager Devadoss was not examined.
v)Telex message operator Srinivasan was not examined.
vi) PW.52 (I.O.) admitted that no statement was recorded from
him (page 394).
vii) There is no evidence against the accused with regard to
telex messages.
viii)No evidence to show that the available telex messages are forged one. The procedure will not allow to create forged telex messages.
The Findings:
Kannappan, the brother of the accused, was not examined. There is no handwriting expert opinion to suggest that the accused created the vouchers.
However, the Statement of Account of Kannappan NRE Account 195 is Ex. P100. PW2 states that a sum of Rs. 5,27,758, relating to USD 4,900 under UTTP 33, was debited to this account. The debit voucher in question, Ex.P30, was prepared by the accused. The accused prepared a credit voucher on the same day, which was marked as Ex.P31.
A sum of Rs. 5,26,440/- was debited to Kanappan’s account vide Credit Voucher Ex.P31, but the statement of account has not reflected the same.
PW2 says that a sum of Rs. Rs.. 2,60,390 relating to USD 7374 under UTTP 45 was debited to the US account. The debit voucher, Ex. P32 was prepared by the accused. Furthermore, the accused prepared a credit voucher on the same day, which was marked as Exhibit P34.
A sum of Rs. 2,60,390/- was debited to Kanappan’s account vide Credit Voucher Ex.P34 but the statement of account has not reflected the same. Thus, the charge stands proved.

Charge No 16. – 467 r/w 471 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as mentioned in the first charge fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the telex messages as detail mentioned in the previous charge which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 467 r/w 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
When forgery of telex messages cannot be proved, no offence u/s.471 IPC would arise.
The Findings:
It has already been found that the telex messages were forged, and consequently, this charge is proved.
Charge No.17 – 420 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge cheated the SBI, AIEB, Chennai by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the said bank to deliver the amount fraudulently credited on the basis of the fabricated telex messages as detail mentioned in the above said previous charges which were credited in the account No.NRE 195 which was opened by you and subsequently

induced the bank to deliver the same to you and there by you committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
ii)When no evidence to prove charge No.15 and 16, no charge No 17 can be said to be proved.
The Findings:
Charges 15 & 16 are already held proven. Ex. P37 foreign currency payment order register mentions a reference number with regard to NRE Account 195. Thus, there is clear proof that the accused cheated the Bank. Charge Proved.
Charge No.18 – 477A IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge being a clerk to State Bank of India stealthily and with intent to defraud the bank and made a false particulars in the Foreign Exchange transaction-purchase sheet of the bank namely the TT purchase transaction of that bank as if the telex message dated 21.8.96 & 23.10.96 for a sum of Rs.5, 26, 440/- & Rs.2, 60, 390/- as if the said amount was received on account of collection of export bill (EXPB) and USD DD puchased (UDD) which belong to the said bank and send the same to SBI, Foreign Department, Calcutta and UTTP register of the Bank in order to screen the fraud committed by you and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 477-A IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:

Unless the charges relating to the telex messages are proved, their charge of 477-A as a corollary also does not stand proved.
The Findings:
Once the charges 15,16 &17 are proved, this is a consequential charge for falsification of accounts. Hence, proved.
Charge No.19 – 468 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detailed mentioned in the first charge forged certain documents viz., a/c opening form in the name of Punitha Ramanathan dated 19.8.96 by forging the signature of Punitha Ramanathan, your wife in the a/c opening form and specimen signature card in the name of Punitha Ramanathan intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating by way of making false credit in the said accounts and subsequently withdrew the same and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 468 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i) Punitha Ramanathan (wife of the accused) has been examined
as PW.47. She has been treated as hostile. She was not even shown the A/c. opening form of account 84.25/22 and it was not marked as Exhibit.
ii)She was not given an opportunity either to admit or to deny
the same.
The Findings:
Punitha Ramanathan/PW47, the wife of the accused, admitted that her signature was found in Ex. P302 Account opening form and denies her signature found in Ex. P 112 signature card of Punitha Ramanathan. From her evidence, although hostile, it would be clear that she knew nothing about the transactions. The accused fraudulently
and dishonestly opened a joint account bearing No. 84/25122, which was subsequently numbered as 01190035122. It is not necessary to further prove these signatures through expert evidence. The extrajudicial confession of the appellant also corroborates the prosecution’s version. Thus, the fact relating to the forgery of the account opening is not proved. But the forging of Ex. P112 has been demonstrated. Hence, the Charge proved.
Charge No.20 – 468 r/w 471 IPC
That you in the course of the same transaction fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine a certain document viz. the account opening form and specimen Signature Card in the name of Punitha Ramanathan as detailed mentioned in the previous charge which you knew or had reasons to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 IPC r/w 471 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i)This charge relates to charge No.19
ii)When the document itself has not been proved to be forged,
offence u/s.471 IPC does not arise.
The Findings:
PW 47 denies the signature found in Ex. 112 Signature card. In view of the charge 19 being held proved, this is a consequential charge and hence proved.
Charge No. 21 – 467 IPC 2 Counts

That you in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the first charge on 5.8.96 & 17.4.97 forged certain documents purporting to be a valuable document namely, the telex message as if amounts were received from SBI, New York by way telex with an intent to cheat the bank and on the basis of the fabricated telex message a sum of is Rs.2,09,630/-& Rs.3,52,350/- were received by way of telex transfer in the name of Punitha Ramanathan and credited the amount into the said account No. 84/25122 subsequently converted as 01190035122 opened by you fraudulently and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 467 IPC (two counts) and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i) ExP.69, ExP.70, ExP.76, ExP.84, ExP.85, ExP.172, ExP.189 ad ExP.192 are the telex messages.
ii) No evidence that they are all fabricated telex messages.
iii) With regard to telex message procedures spoken to by PW.2, PW3, PW.5, PW.6, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12.
iv) Accounts Manager Devadoss was not examined.
v)Telex message operator Srinivasan was not examined.
vi) PW.52 (I.O.) admitted that no statement was recorded from
him (page 394).
vii) There is no evidence against the accused with regard to
telex messages.
viii)No evidence to show that the available telex messages are forged one. The procedure will not allow to create forged telex messages.
The Findings:
PW2 states that Ex. P39 is the credit voucher of Rs. 2,09,630/- dated 5.8.96 was prepared by the accused and passed by him. As per this Rs.2,10,154/- was debited and after deducting the bank commission, Rs.2,09,630/- was credited into the Savings Bank Account No.84/25122 of Punitha Ramanathan. prepared by accused
1 and passed by him and the debit voucher is P38

PW2 states that Rs. 3,52,350 was credited to the savings bank account of Punitha Ramanathan vide acc no 01190035122 and renumbered as 35122, Debit Vocuher P45, credit voucher Ex.P46. The contentions are identical in respect of the earlier charges 15,16,17 which are rejected. For the same findings, this Charge is also proved.
Charge No. 22 – 467 r/w 471 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as mentioned in the first charge fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the telex messages as detail mentioned in the previous charge which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed the offence punishable under section 467 r/w 471 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i)When forgery of telex messages cannot be proved, no offence
u/s.471 IPC would arise.
The Findings:
Ex.P39 are the debit and credit vouchers prepared by the accused. As per this, Rs.2,10,154/- was debited, and after deducting the bank commission, Rs.2,09,630/- was credited into the Savings Bank
Account No.84/25122 of Punitha Ramanathan. The note relating to this is available at pages 184-185 in Ex.P9, and that was written by the accused, and that note is Ex.P79. When he passed, all the Telex messages were tested and brought along with the above-mentioned vouchers. In view of the findings of Charge 21, this charge stands proved.
Charge No. 23 – 420 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge cheated the SBI, AIEB, Chennai by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the said bank to deliver the amount fraudulently credited on the basis of the fabricated telex messages C as detail mentioned in the above said previous charges which were credited in the account No.84/25122 subsequently converted as 01190035122 which was opened by you and subsequently induced the bank to deliver the same to you and there by you committed the offence
punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
Amount was credited based on authentication of PW.2 after verification.
The Findings:
Once, it was proved that the telex messages were falsely created and used to credit amounts into the account of PW-47, the wife of the accused, based on her evidence and the corroborating evidence of the accused’s involvement in share purchases, etc, this charge stands proved.

Charge No.24 – 477A IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge clerk to State Bank of India stealthly and with intent to defraud the bank and made a false particulars in the Foreign exchange Transaction-Purchase sheets of the bank namely the TT purchase transaction of that bank as if the telex message dated 5.8.96 & 17.4.97 for a sum of Rs. 2,09,630/-and Rs.3,52,350/- as if the said amount was received for purchase of USD DD purchase, which belong to the said bank and send the same to SBI, Foreign Department, Calcutta and UTTP Register of the Bank in order to screen the fraud committed by you and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 477-A and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
Unless the charges relating to the telex messages are proved, their charge of 477-A as a corollary also does not stand proved.
The Findings:
The transactions stand proved. In view of the findings made in the earlier charges and the deliberate erroneous entries made by the accused having specifically brought on record, this charge is proved.
Charge No.25 – 467 IPC Two Counts
That you in the course of the same transact as, mentioned in the first charge on 24.1.97 & 4.3.97 forged certain documents purporting to be a valuable document namely the telex message as if amounts were received from foreign country by way telex with an intent to cheat the bank and on the basis of the fabricated telex message a sum of Rs.2, 99, 290/- & Rs. 2, 13,480/- were received by way of telex transfer in the name of Punitha Murugappan and credited the amount into the said account No. C-36/7105 at SBI, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai opened by you fraudulently and thereby you committed the offence

punishable under section 467 IPC (two counts) and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
PW.47 admitted her signature in the A/c. opening form of account no. C-36/7105.
The Findings :
Pw4 speaks about Ex.P45, the credit voucher was prepared for a sum of Rs . 2,99,290/- plus Rs. 758 as bank charges, based on the prevailing rate on that day for US$8,400, as per Ex.P46. Ex. P45 & Ex. P46 were prepared by the accused. The above transaction is reflected in Ex.P12 at pages 3 & 4, and the relevant entry in Ex.P47 is in the handwriting of the accused. As per Ex.P47, the amount was credited to a sum of Rs. 2,99,290/- in the account of Punitha Ramanathan, Savings Bank Account No. 36/7105, in the Anna Nagar West Branch. He/Accused authenticated Ex.P45, Ex.P46 and Ex.P47. There is no expert opinion on whether the accused had prepared the document.
Ex.P49 is the debit voucher dated 4.3.97 relating to UT TP
No.96 for US $ 6000 debiting the account of US branches account Ex.P50 is the credit voucher for Rs.2,13,480/- plus bank charges for a sum of Rs. 540 for crediting the amount on the basis of rate prevailing for US $ 6000, Ex.P49 and Ex.P50 are reflected in Ex.P12 at page No. 17 and 18 and the relevant entry is Ex.P83. PW4 has further stated that Ex.P49, Ex.P50 & Ex.P83 were prepared by the accused. As per Ex.P83, the amount of Rs. 2,13,480/- was credited to account 36/7105 of the Anna Nagar West branch. He authenticated Ex.P49, Ex.P50 and Ex.P83.
The prosecution’s version is corroborated by the detailed inquiry report and the accused’s extrajudicial confession. Hence, the charge proved.

Charge No.26 – 420 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge cheated the SBI, AISB, Chennai and SBI, Annanager branch, Chennai by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the said bank to deliver the amount fraudulently credited on the basis of the fabricated telex messages, details mentioned in the above said previous charges which were credited in the account No.C.36/7105 which was opened by you and subsequently induced the bank to deliver the same to you and there by you committed the offence
Punishable under section 420, IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i) when charge no. 26 not proved, no charge no. 27 can be said
to be proved
The Findings:
Charge 26 held to be proved. The wife of the accused denied knowledge of the transactions. It has been proven that the accused is the sole beneficiary of the money he withdrew and cheated the bank.
Hence, the Charge proved.
Charge No.27 – 420 IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge cheated the SBI, AIEB, Chennai arid SBI, Anna Nagar branch. Chennai by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the said bank to deliver the amount fraudulently credited on the basis of the fabricated telex messages, details mentioned in the above said previous charges which were credited in the account No.C-36/7105 which was opened by you and subsequently induced the bank to deliver the same to you and there by you committed the offence

punishable under section 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
i) When charge no. 26 is not proved, no charge no. 27 can be
said to be proved
The Findings:
For the findings made in respect of Charge 26, this charge is also proved
Charge No.28 – 477A IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge being a clerk to State Bank of India stealthily and with intent to defraud the bank and made a false particulars in the books of accounts of the bank namely the TT purchase transaction of that bank as if the telex message dated 24.1.97 and 4.3.97 for a sum of Rs.2.99.290/- & 2,13,480 as if the said amount was received for purchase of USD purchase and export bill process, which belong to the said bank and send the same to SBI, Foreign Department, Calcutta in order to screen the fraud committed by you and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 477-A IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
Unless the charges relating to the telex messages are proved, their charge of 477-A as a corollary also does not stand proved.
The Findings:
The charges relating to the transaction and creation of false telex messages have been proven. Hence, consequently, this charge stands proved.

Charge No. 29 – 467 r/w471 IPC
That you, in the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the previous charge at Chennai, fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine a certain documents namely 16 cheque leaves in the name of Ramasamy Chettiar relating to NRE A/c. No. 173 opened by you, 8 cheque leaves in the name of Kannappan relating to NRE A/C. No. 195 opened by you knowing fully well that the signatures of Ramasamy Chettiar and Kannapan were forged with the help of unknown person you used it which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 r/w 471 IPC
The Contentions:
No evidence that the accused had committed any forgery in the cheques. Cheque book register Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 not sent for expert opinion.

The Findings:
PW36, was shown Ex.P294 to 298 , 299,301, 130 to 136 and 96 cheques and he has denied his signatures in the said cheques. He had deposed that he or his family members did not have knowledge about the credits and the withdrawals in the accounts. PW-9 identifies the cheques being filled in the handwriting of the accused. His handwriting is also proved to through expert PW-50 and report Ex.P-368. Thus, the charge is proved.
Charge No.30 – 467 IPC
That you in the course of the same transaction mentioned in the previous transactions forged documents purporting to be a valuable security detail certain documents the signatures of Punitha Ramanathan 5 cheque leaves and 6 withdrawal slips relating account No.01190035122 stands in the name of Punitha Ramana that with intent to defraud the State Bank of India, AIE bra Chennai and thereby you committed an offence punishable under section 467 IPC

and within my cognizance.
The Contentions:
Punitha Ramanathan did not state that she has not signed the cheque leaves and with drawal slips.
The Findings:
Ex. 122,123,124,125 are the cheques issued by Punitha,
Ex. 121, 126 are the withdrawal slips
In Ex. 125, Q 99, the question raised concerns the signature on the cheque; the expert opinion states that the handwriting is that of Murugappan. Punitha was examined and had not claimed the issuance of cheques. The extrajudicial confession corroborates the prosecution’s claim. Charge proved
Charge No.31 -467 r/w.471 IPC
That you in the course of the same transact as detail mentioned in the previous charges at Chennai Fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine a certain documents namely cheque leaves and withdrawal slips as mentioned in the previous charge in the name of Punitha Ramanathan relating to a/c No.01190055 122 which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it to be a forged document and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 467 ?/w471 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
Since forgery charge in charge No.30 not proved, Charge No.31 cannot be said to be proved.
The Findings:
PW7 Speaks about the fact that on 13.06.96, the cheque book bearing No.427501 to 427525 containing 25 leaves was issued in favour of Punitha Ramanathan, and the cheque book was received by the accused, for which he signed in Ex.P3 at page No.17, and the relevant entry is Ex.P117. On 26.09.96, 26.09.97, the cheque book bearing No.054376 to 354400, 054401 to 054425, 054426 to 054450, 054451 to 054475 containing four books and 100 leaves were issued in favour of Punitha in the same was received by the accused under his signature and the relevant entry is found at page No.87 in Ex.P3 and the same is Ex.P118. On 11.10.96, the cheque book bearing No.655776 to 655800 containing 25 leaves was issued in favour of Punitha Ramanathan, and the same was received by the accused under his signature, and the relevant entry is found at page No.32 in Ex.P3, which is Ex.P119. There is evidence that in Ex. 125, Q 99, the question raised is about the signature on the cheque; the expert opinion states that it is the handwriting of Murugappan. Hence charge proved.
Charge No.32 – 201 IPC
That you being clerk cum typist of State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch knowingly for having reasons to believe that offence has been committed namely theft, fabrication of records etc. and in order to screen the offence committed by you with intent to destroy the evidence for the illegal acts committed by you in order to escape from the legal punishment you destroyed the Telex messages as stated above, number portion of the FCNR dt.20.2.92 for US $ 4995.27, FCNR Register No. II of the SB AIEB and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 201 IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i) No evidence that accused has destroyed any telex messages.

ii) No evidence that there was any fabricated telex messages. iii) No witness speaks about that. iv) Telex message operator Srinivasan not examined.
v) Accounts manager Devadoss not examined.
vi)No loss of any FCNR receipts. They are in the safe custody of the officials.
The Findings:
There is indeed no direct evidence as to the manner in which the accused destroyed. But these were ongoing transactions. No other person in the bank was dishonestly involved with the accused. These documents are missing. Therefore, it leads to the only conclusion that it is only the accused who destroyed the same. The extra-judicial confession corroborates the prosecution’s version.
Charge No.33 – u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988
That you being a public servant employed as Clerk cum typist in State Bank of India, AIE Branch, during the period 1993 to 1997 at Chennai by corrupt or by illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as a public servant as detail mentioned in the above charges for yourself and others pecuniary advantage to the tune of is. 31,59,769.80 from State Bank of Indian and thereby you committed the offences specified in the section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and within my cognizance
The Contentions:
i)Ingredients of section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act not made out:.
ii)To prove an offence u/s.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, the sine qua non is proof of prior demand followed by subsequent acceptance of illegal gratification.
The Findings:
The provision in Section 13(1)(d), defining criminal misconduct is a penal provision and has to be read as such. A plain reading thereof, two ingredients are essential. The public servant should abuse is position. The same is only the weaving fabric of all these transactions. The accused thoroughly abused his official position of the clerk, gained confidence of everyone, had a free hand in every seat and indulged in these transactions. By the acts, he should have got illegal pecuniary benefits to himself, that is also proven. Hence, in the present context of the case, the offence stands proved and it is just not illegal gratification alone, that is specified in Section 13(1)(d) as it stood. Hence charge proved.
4.15 With regard to Charge No.1, it can be seen that all the transactions, which form the subject matter of other charges, have been proved. The evidence of the handwriting expert categorically proves that in many of the documents, while the accused had created the false documents and his handwriting in the documents was proved, the forgery of signatures alone remains in question. The only logical conclusion is that the accused had received assistance from unknown persons to commit the same act. It is now well settled that the charge of conspiracy with unknown person(s) can also be laid and proved. Thus, all the facts above lead us to the only conclusion that the first charge also stands proven.
4.16 Apart from the above, regarding the entire episode, the bank also conducted a detailed investigation through P.W.49, and a 75-page report is marked as Ex.P366. Although the report by itself would not serve as primary evidence of the charges, it was independently carried out in detail by the bank. The details of each fraudulent transaction are listed from Serial No.1 to 69 in the annexure to the report. The modus operandi related to the FCNB and UTTP frauds was examined in detail, which also supports the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the report highlights lapses both in the system and the misconduct/negligence of other officials that facilitated the actions of the accused, demonstrating how the accused operated freely for a long time without being caught. In fact, this also provides significant corroborative value to the prosecution’s case. Thus, I am of the view, the the findings of guilt entered into by the Trial Court does not call for any interference. E. The Sentence:
5. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court on each charge was summarized above. It is evident that the maximum punishment for some charges is simple imprisonment for three years, while it is less for others. The loss caused to the bank remains unpaid. The acts committed by the accused were calculated and carried out over several instances, without any hesitation, until they were uncovered by other officers. The Trial Court already imposed a lenient sentence. Any additional leniency would be disproportionate to the severity of the crimes, and the appellant/accused deserves the sentence as imposed. Therefore, the respective sentence, including the fine, stands confirmed. It is also made clear that the fine amounts are already paid; the Sentences will run concurrently; and the appellant/accused will be entitled to set off the period, if any, already undergone. F. The Result:
6. In the result, this Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2014 stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai, by the judgment dated 30.07.2014 in C.C.No.63 of 2001 stands confirmed. The accused is granted twelve (12) weeks to surrender to the Trial
Court to serve the remainder of the sentence.

Neutral Citation : Yes/No .09.2025
Jer/Jrs
To
1.The XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
4.The Section Officer
High Court of Madras.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Jer

Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2014
01.09.2025